(Say the Jesus Creed morning and evening during Lent.)
Anthony Thiselton's new book, Hermeneutics of Doctrine
You can link here to see Thiselton's books
He examines a variety of topics through the lens of hermeneutics in this book -- including the hermeneutics of creation, image of God, sin, cross, work of Christ, atonement, Holy Spirit, Trinity, church and ministry, word and sacraments, and eschatology.
We won't be blogging through this book, mostly because I'm not sure how to do it ... and how many of us would want to engage this tome on hermeneutics is probably limited. So, here are some highlights for me:
1. A clarification of how seeing belief as "dispositional" instead of just "mental" opens up both passages in the Bible (say 1 John or Jonah) and how we have sought to explain what it means to "confess" Christian faith. Disposition deals with the expectations of confession and behaviors "if" one genuinely does believe.
2. An emphasis on doctrine finding shape only in community.
3. That doctrine is formational and not just informational. This is the big impact of this book ... and again everything by Thiselton is thick and brilliant.
4. He complains way too often about American theology. There should be more appreciation of cultural difference and that his own context is shaping that complaint; in addition, his reduction of American theology to pragmatism or to simple alternatives is itself a reductionism, not the least because it's also found over on his side of the water.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
After moving over the course of six decades from fundamentalism to something quite different, discussions of Christian doctrine are of much less interest to me than they once were. My working hypothesis today is that most (all?) of what we consider as "doctrine" actually represents an attempt by a part of the church at a particular time to interpret its experience of god and/or Jesus. Examples of doctrines included in this "interpretational" list would be not only "small" ones like the virgin birth, but "big" ones like the incarnation and Jesus' sinlessness.
Any interpretation of experience is contingent on time and the culture of the people making that interpretation; therefore a fairly general statement would be that doctrine and dogma are also contingent. Saying that a doctrine is essential is something like saying that a particular interpretation is essential. The latter is generally regarded as more problematic than the former, I think, but perhaps the notion that some doctrines are essential should be more problematic than it is.
I guess I'm asking if there are any doctrines that are absolutely essential or non-negotiable, and what they might be. From another angle, I'm not sure that "confession" of faith should properly involve doctrines at all.
ron,
I may not understand what you mean - but if God acted in history, if there is any truth to the Christian story – then there are some "doctrines" that are absolutely essential. Those doctrines related to the fact that there is a God and that he acted in a concrete fashion in human history are non-negotiable. So – the incarnation is one of those doctrines. If the incarnation is not true – there is no timeless Christian story. Without the crucifixion and resurrection as concrete atoning acts, the Christian story is hogwash.
Ah – but how to understand these events, maybe this is what you mean by doctrine. The interpretation of these events – these data - these acts of God – has varied somewhat throughout history, influenced by culture and situation. We can and should step back and interpret the acts – and much of the interpretation is negotiable. I am dead certain that no dogmatic statement of interpretation has ever gotten everything right.
How can one have any confession of faith without some level of doctrine?
Thx Doug...I'll have to check those out.
ron,
Speaking from a U-U perspective, there is only one thing that is absolutely essential and non-negotiable: the Jesus creed. Any doctrine or interpretation of doctrine that compromises or diminishes the centrality of the Jesus creed is suspect and unnecessary. It may well be that John, Paul, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, etc. would find fault with this perspective. However, IMHO, Jesus would bless it.
Doug
RJS, I think your 2nd paragraph, rather than your first, is much closer to my point of view. To respond to, rather than "answer", your 3d paragraph, I would ask if enthusiasm for following Jesus, accompanied by a skeptical wondering about who he was, a start on a 'doctrine' that would support a 'confession of faith'?
Doug, I think we are unanimous.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.